Author:
Publication: BJP Today
Date: September 16-30, 2002
Introduction: Pandit Deendayal
Upadhyaya, front whom all of us draw ideological inspiration, was a true
visionary. We reproduce here an article written by him on September 12,
1960, on the Jammu and Kashmir issue which is so relevant today. - Editor
The Prime Minister is going to Pakistan
oil 19th of this month. The avowed object of this visit, according to his
statement in the Lok Sabha, is to sign the Canal Waters Treaty. But it
does not take five long days to initial a document. Obviously, the time
is to be utilized for discussing other problems pending between India and
Pakistan. However, no definite agenda has been fixed. One can understand
the desirability of not insisting oil an agenda specially when there are
basic differences between the viewpoints of the two States on most of the
issues. But the indefinite and general nature of the talks has given rise
to wide speculation about their purpose and about tile topics to be discussed.
While New Delhi is reticent, Karachi is quite vocal. News items based oil
reliable sources emanating from Karachi and Rawalpindi have made it known
to the world that possibly the two leaders would discuss Kashmir. As tile
press ill Pakistan is control led, we call take these reports to be nothing
but official handouts. From these reports it appears that the scope of
the talks is very wide and includes all sorts of topics from Indo-Pak trade
to joint defence.
Inspite of the fact that all the
pending and possible issues may be discussed there is no likelihood of
any package deal. Neither tile Government of India nor that of Pakistan,
is ill a position to sell such a deal to their people. Both have their
commitments at home and abroad and it would need a basic reversal of policies
if a question such as joint defence is even to be considered. Under the
circumstances it does not seem to be desirable or wise to open all the
questions only to find that there exists a wide divergence of viewpoints.
Such a thing will only arrest the
improvement in the relations between the two States that has been visible
of late Unless the President desires to exploit the visit for propaganda
purposes to show to the world that India is not responsive, by putting
all sorts of unthinkable and unacceptable proposals, the talks should be
confined to only such matters on which there is little difference. As relations
improve, the proper atmosphere for dealing with even ticklish questions
would be created.
Of particular concern at the present
moment is the question of Kashmir. This is reported to have been included
in the undeclared agenda for the talks. Pakistan, unless it has the good
sense of vacating aggression, knows frill well that the problem cannot
easily be solved. Even then it has been included only because it wants
mischief. Pakistan's game all these years has been to continue to create
a state of uncertainty about the future of Kashmir, and that sustains the
anti-national and pro-Pakistan elements in Kashmir.
So far as India is concerned, the
only question to be discussed with Pakistan in respect of Kashmir is when
and how it intends to withdraw from that part of Indian territory. The
question of accession has been long ago and finally settled. We cannot
reopen it. If Pakistan wants to question tile right of the Maharaja to
sign the Instrument of Accession or of the Constituent Assembly of J. &
K. State to ratify it, we can as well question the right of Pakistan as
a separate entity. Pakistan was created under the India Independence Act.
The same Act put an end to the paramountcy of the then British Government
and left the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir like any other prince- sovereign
in his own right to decide the future of the State. As for the people,
the Constituent Assembly of the State was surely of a more representative
character than all the junta of politicians who divided the country, or
rule that part of it now known as Pakistan. If Pakistan wants to put the
hands of the clock back, let us go to June 3, 1947 and not to October 26,
1947.
It is necessary that the Prime Minister
should refuse to discuss the question of accession of Kashmir and make
a categorical declaration in this behalf. His silence is proving harmful.
His silence is unwittingly playing into the hands of Pakistan. This is
giving a new lease of life to the Plebiscite Front and other communal elements
in the State. While on the one hand Pakistan is widely publicising the
inclusion of Kashmir in the agenda, Shekh Abdullah and Beg on the other
hand have been utilising to the fullest extent possible the opportunity
afforded to them in the course of their trial, to make political statements
instilling a new hope in their followers. It is unfortunate that the Indian
press which is so niggardly in giving space to the expression of nationalist
sentiments with regard to Kashmir, has been displaying the views of these
anti-national elements with an eye on unusual publicity. The whole thing
is intriguing.
Views have also been expressed that
by accepting a de facto partition of the State along the ceasefire line
a solution of the problem is possible. Whether Pakistan will accept such
a solution, there is no indication. Prime Minister Nehru had once made
such a proposal, but it was summarily rejected by Pakistan. Even now it
is only the people and press on our side who have been going out of their
way to propose such a solution. Most of them belong to that group which
is eager for some sort of a joint defence pact with Pakistan, and therefore
willing to pay any price to secure it. Such all undue anxiety on our part
is evidence neither of statesmanship nor of nationalism.
The argument of these people is
that the chances of regaining the one-third of Kashmir beyond the ceasefire
line are very remote and that, therefore, it is better to give a legal
status to an already existing fact rather than keep alive the myth of our
sovereignty in that area, and thus leave a problem pending. They also feel
that ill view of the mounting threat of Chinese aggression we should disentangle'
ourselves from the Pakistan mesh. Once the issue is settled with Pakistan
they hope that normalcy would also return to the rest of the State. These
people do not take into consideration national sentiments but claim to
speak as hard headed realists, dismissing with contempt all expressions
of national feeling and self-respect as mere sentimentality. While we feet
that a realist should be able to differentiate between sentiment and sentimentalism
and should realise the great potent power of the former in building a people,
we would for the present consider the proposal ill a more mundane manner
and see what dangerous implications the proposal has.
If the cease-fire line is recognized
as the de facto boundary between India and Pakistan, what reaction is it
likely to create oil tile people of tile State? As there will be a fundamental
surrender of' our sovereign rights, and all abridgement of scope of tile
Instrument of Accession, this will give a fillip to the Pakistani elements
in the State. They will definitely create disturbances in the State to
achieve their objective of merging larger tracts with Pakistan. It is widely
known that the communists also have some hold oil tile people of the valley.
The Democratic National Conference is nothing but a wing of the CPI in
the State. Once the certainty about the relationship of the State with
India is disturbed these and other people will try to fish in the troubled
waters. There is no guarantee that they will not work for the Chinese who
have already crossed the frontier. This course will thus defeat the very
purpose of those who want to surrender a part of Kashmir to Pakistan in
order that India should face the Chinese more effectively.
Mere reports that the Kashmir question
is being reopened have created problems for the Bakshi Government. It must
be said to the credit of Shri Ghulam Mohammed Bakshi that he has withstood
all attempts at undermining his loyalty to India and has so far acted as
a true nationalist. But if, instead of strengthening his hands, as also
consolidating nationalist forces in tile State, New Delhi continues to
follow a policy of keeping the Kashmir question hanging in the air, there
can be uncertainties also in places where we had so far found nothing but
certainty. Communal and regional considerations have already begun to determine
the policy of the Bakshi Government. Instead of relying on the nationalist
elements in and outside the State he seems to be trying to woo the communal
forces of the Valley. Nothing but failure can be his lot in this. But the
policy of the Government will by then have created a lot of mischief with
regard to that State and caused untold stirring to the people of Jammu.
The question of Chinese aggression
has also to be considered against the background of the policy of inaction
of tile Government of India. Pandit Nehru is determined not to take any
military action against China to get the aggression vacated. The issue
already seems to have been frozen. China will continue to stay put in Ladakh,
as Pakistan does in Kashmir. A time will come when some people will counsel
de-jure recognition of the de-facto occupation. Thus it will mean our losing
both sides. Heads we lose to Pakistan, and tails to China. This policy
of surrender will also encourage further aggression against India.
We have also to take into account
the increasing activities of Muslim communal elements in the country. They
are becoming more and more aggressive. Their activities in the recent Assam
riots are well known. The day is not far off when we will find that demands
by these people are put forward and Pakistan will inspire and back them
as it has been doing in the case of Kashmir. Appeasement will only whet
the appetite of Pakistan, and of all those who have been dreaming of an
Islamistan in Hindusthan.
It is, therefore, necessary that
the Prime Minister should not talk about Kashmir so far as its accession
is concerned. Let him insist on getting the aggression vacated. Due to
some reports and the activities of some people, there have been apprehensions
in the minds of people about the possible outcome of the talks. We demand
a categorical assurance from the Prime Minister that he would not in any
way agree to any infringement of the sovereign rights of Bharat in Kash-mir.
In this connection attention must be drawn to the Canal Waters Treaty which
is reported to contain a clause with regard to the Mangla Dam in Pak-occupied
Kashmir. The Prime Minister should not sign this treaty unless this cause
is deleted. If he accepts Pakistan's right to construct a dam in that area,
our earlier protest in this regard will have no meaning. It will mean a
virtual abdication of our claim on that part of Bharat's lawful territory.
People should also be watchful.
At a time when the Government is out to offer lands in Bhoodan, they alone
are the protectors of the unity and integrity of the country. Let us very
clearly tell the Government that no betrayal of the nation's trust shall
be tolerated. Be it Berubari or Kashmir, Aksai Chin or Barahoti, the Government
has to protect and preserve, and not to pawn and part with, national territory.
(Courtesy: Suruchi Prakashan, New
Delhi)
